Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:10:22PM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
[...] >> What I'm trying to explain is that I like the idea of an extra pool >> with the buildd and bts but no automatic move to another pool. I >> think, DD and people with chroot can point to this distribution to >> test things and it could be a buffer for the new packages. > > If this would lead to more developers and beta-testers being able to > use experimental, then I think this would be a good idea. People might > upload there newer more in-development packages here first, instead of > to unstable. > > Now that I think about it though, this is already possible. You can > pin all of experimental just as high as unstable in the APT > preferences file. I think the only difference now between your > proposal and reality is support from the buildd's (I believe > experimental has fairly good support in the BTS). Also, it's not the same url in the sources.list s/unstable/experimental/ it's a bit different and for different arches. What about the arches `all'? Well, I'm maybe a particular case: powerpc + java ;) but it could be the same with sparc + perl or else. Where can I have more information about experimental? >> We put every new packages in `Scud' and when accepted, after some >> test by others, we can safer move it to `Sid' with less delay. > > Every new package, or every new upload? The former might be alright, > but the latter would make experimental to unstable what unstable is to > testing. The first. As I explain in the begining of my mail, I don't want to reproduce unstable -> testing because of the non automatic move from `Scud' to `Sid'. The main point for me is the buildd and experimental to be a copy *plus* exception distribution (the plus exception are _the_ experimental packages). Hope to be clearer, Cheers, -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `-
pgpdGKAOGmMo1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
